I think Disinformation likes to milk the term "conspiracy theory," while offering relatively little of the facts and information that back some of them up. Quit coddling the mainstream, Disinfo. It's no longer necessary.
http://www.disinfo.com/2010/05/pakistan-and-conspiracy-theory/
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Professional Pawns
The only thing worse than a damned fool is a professional damned fool. There are many reasons why Americans remain functionally asleep to the reality of their Globalist imposed tyranny, but one of the main ones is certainly our state of profound ignorance. Upon occasion I marvel at just how hard I had tried to become well informed by relying on mainstream sources, such as NPR and MSNBC, and just how laughably impossible that turned out to be. Before independent internet based media arrived to revive the corpse of journalism in this country, I had essentially given up any hope of receiving accurate and contextually rich information.
Had I even been aware that the many blatant discrepencies of the official explanation of 9/11 were "on the table," so to speak, in terms of discussion-worthy topics, I would've displayed a passionate interest. But the MSM, between 2001 and 2006 performed their sociological hypnotism extraordinarily well, as to repel any serious look at the event. But sometime in 2006-7, this changed. Enough of a clamor had grown, enough voices had joined in, to make the chorus of 9/11 truth just barely audible within the nooks and crannies of the internet. Simultaneously, the MSM, through increasingly lackluster attempts to coherently address our deeply rooted problems, was and still is churning out hordes of intellectually hungry discontents like myself, who inevitably gravitate toward the truth movement.
This summarizes the response that I and many others have had to a first encounter with truly independent media. There is, however, another all too common response to this hidden class of information. Some people have simply decided, perhaps subconsciously, that the acknowledgment that they've been utterly and comprehensively lied to since birth is either too frightening or too threatening to the ego to allow to occur. This is a morally hazardous choice to make because as soon as one chooses to ignore looming threats, one is volunteering themselves up as dependent of those who do choose to address these problems. This simple point is lost on many of us, who have been so effectively trained to only seriously consider the question of what to consume and when to consume it. We are meant to feel as alienated from as much of the structure of governance as possible.
This is another big barrier between many people and the horrendous reality of crimes like 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Act. To examine these crimes is to examine the true cost of our monolithically shallow consumer culture, which has captivated us like shiny objects do a baby. To admit that this is our reality is to admit that we are all sick and in need of healing. Much easier to indulge in racism, sports, and beer.
Had I even been aware that the many blatant discrepencies of the official explanation of 9/11 were "on the table," so to speak, in terms of discussion-worthy topics, I would've displayed a passionate interest. But the MSM, between 2001 and 2006 performed their sociological hypnotism extraordinarily well, as to repel any serious look at the event. But sometime in 2006-7, this changed. Enough of a clamor had grown, enough voices had joined in, to make the chorus of 9/11 truth just barely audible within the nooks and crannies of the internet. Simultaneously, the MSM, through increasingly lackluster attempts to coherently address our deeply rooted problems, was and still is churning out hordes of intellectually hungry discontents like myself, who inevitably gravitate toward the truth movement.
This summarizes the response that I and many others have had to a first encounter with truly independent media. There is, however, another all too common response to this hidden class of information. Some people have simply decided, perhaps subconsciously, that the acknowledgment that they've been utterly and comprehensively lied to since birth is either too frightening or too threatening to the ego to allow to occur. This is a morally hazardous choice to make because as soon as one chooses to ignore looming threats, one is volunteering themselves up as dependent of those who do choose to address these problems. This simple point is lost on many of us, who have been so effectively trained to only seriously consider the question of what to consume and when to consume it. We are meant to feel as alienated from as much of the structure of governance as possible.
This is another big barrier between many people and the horrendous reality of crimes like 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Act. To examine these crimes is to examine the true cost of our monolithically shallow consumer culture, which has captivated us like shiny objects do a baby. To admit that this is our reality is to admit that we are all sick and in need of healing. Much easier to indulge in racism, sports, and beer.
Monday, November 16, 2009
2012 And The Mainstream Media
The mainstream eunuchs, NPR especially, have really been laying on the adolescent condescension and non sequiturs on the topic of 2012 this week. Here's a couple of points about how their approach to the question was both factually inaccurate and dismissive.
The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.
Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.
The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.
My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.
The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.
Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.
The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.
My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Who Is Jon Stewart? What is Jon Stewart?
Surely, by now you must have realized you're the undisputed leader of TV punditry and perhaps even the mainstream media as a whole. Why someone would seek that shameful title is perfectly beyond me, but I'm not blind to the power it has allowed you to wield. The question is how do you want to use it, and are you going to use it at all?
You have a very limited window of opportunity to escape the inevitable one-way ticket to shillville that awaits all members of the mainstream media. For years you served as a much needed comedic voice of reason for the nation, persistently pointing out the silliness and mutual hypocrisy on both the phony left and phony right. But with the internet finally beginning to fulfill it's potential, it would seem that the role you play is becoming more and more passe. With much easier access to good information, it's becoming more clear to some people what you are and are not permitted to talk about.
For example, your corporate overlords felt it too risky to allow you to dig too deeply into the 9/11 commission report. So you've almost never mentioned it. Simply put, this type of sell-out behavior could have been overlooked back when we needed you. Now that we don't, it can't. And your whole "I'm just a comedian, folks, don't hold me to journalistic standards" argument has worn thin by this point. The reality is that a huge portion of American nitwits turn to you for their knowledge of current events. As repugnant a fact as that is, we must deal with it. You should seriously consider breaking free and leaving Viacom to die from the weight of its own irrelevance.
Think about it. You're rich. You will continue to be rich, and also have new opportunities for profit, if you were to start your own web-based program. Everyone would follow you in droves, and with that kind of support, you should be relatively safe from assassination. Or you could continue along your current path and have the name Jon Stewart forever placed in the Gibroney file. Your choice. I'm just trying to help out.
(Also, 5 bucks to anyone who can tell me what movie this blog's title is from.)
You have a very limited window of opportunity to escape the inevitable one-way ticket to shillville that awaits all members of the mainstream media. For years you served as a much needed comedic voice of reason for the nation, persistently pointing out the silliness and mutual hypocrisy on both the phony left and phony right. But with the internet finally beginning to fulfill it's potential, it would seem that the role you play is becoming more and more passe. With much easier access to good information, it's becoming more clear to some people what you are and are not permitted to talk about.
For example, your corporate overlords felt it too risky to allow you to dig too deeply into the 9/11 commission report. So you've almost never mentioned it. Simply put, this type of sell-out behavior could have been overlooked back when we needed you. Now that we don't, it can't. And your whole "I'm just a comedian, folks, don't hold me to journalistic standards" argument has worn thin by this point. The reality is that a huge portion of American nitwits turn to you for their knowledge of current events. As repugnant a fact as that is, we must deal with it. You should seriously consider breaking free and leaving Viacom to die from the weight of its own irrelevance.
Think about it. You're rich. You will continue to be rich, and also have new opportunities for profit, if you were to start your own web-based program. Everyone would follow you in droves, and with that kind of support, you should be relatively safe from assassination. Or you could continue along your current path and have the name Jon Stewart forever placed in the Gibroney file. Your choice. I'm just trying to help out.
(Also, 5 bucks to anyone who can tell me what movie this blog's title is from.)
Friday, March 27, 2009
My Response To A 9/11 Denialist
As the title suggests, this is my posted youtube response to a particularly silly individual who wanted to battle me on the facts of 9/11.
Your argument is cheap and devoid of any actual content. Basically, you accuse 9/11 conspiracy theories of being silly, reiterating this statement over and over in a redundant fashion, and then provide nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. Since you're obviously a naive little girl, allow me to inform you a bit as to how one presents a point of view and then defends it. First, you state your opinion. You seem to have that part down, since that's really all you said in your entire comment.. over and over again.. then, you provide FACTS that would support your opinion. This you completely fail to do.
And just so ya know, "the tv told me so" is not a valid argument, since the television and media is not a perfectly reliable source of information. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that all information the mainstream media provides is filtered. This fact by itself makes clear that one must rely on multiple sources of media to get as close to the truth as possible.
You try very hard to make certain claims sound silly and incredible, and some of them may very well turn out to be just that. But understand this. If any aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theories were to be disproved, they would be disproved by using the voice of science and reason, not by second-rate generalizations, which really only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.
Of course, you can always just continue shopping and watching tv while maintaining the ridiculous belief that governments, by their very nature, arent always in the business of gaining more power and control over their citizenry. Your argument that no evidence would be left behind is niavete in its purest and most american form. There seem to be two very important facts you fail to understand. 1. When you own the entire mainstream media, you control what most uneducated, unthinking Americans know about anything, and therefore don't need to worry about the glaringly obvious evidence left behind, since most people will continue to think that the very act of discussing the discrepencies regarding 911 is anti-american. They believe this because fox news tells them to believe it, not because it's based on any form of logic or scientific evaluation.
I wonder if the reason your message was completely devoid of facts is because you haven't done any research on September the 11th. Maybe the reason so many "CTs" as you put it, seem to you to think they know everything about 911 is because you know nothing. You'd think that if conspiracy theories annoy you so much, you'd do your homework and provide the arguments and information to finally disprove them once and for all.
I don't claim to know what happened that day, but I will tell you this. At least I'm not afraid to talk about it, which seems to be the main problem with you 9/11 deniers. Instead of honest debate, you resort to insults and childish dismissal, which is a tell-tale sign of someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Your argument is cheap and devoid of any actual content. Basically, you accuse 9/11 conspiracy theories of being silly, reiterating this statement over and over in a redundant fashion, and then provide nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. Since you're obviously a naive little girl, allow me to inform you a bit as to how one presents a point of view and then defends it. First, you state your opinion. You seem to have that part down, since that's really all you said in your entire comment.. over and over again.. then, you provide FACTS that would support your opinion. This you completely fail to do.
And just so ya know, "the tv told me so" is not a valid argument, since the television and media is not a perfectly reliable source of information. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that all information the mainstream media provides is filtered. This fact by itself makes clear that one must rely on multiple sources of media to get as close to the truth as possible.
You try very hard to make certain claims sound silly and incredible, and some of them may very well turn out to be just that. But understand this. If any aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theories were to be disproved, they would be disproved by using the voice of science and reason, not by second-rate generalizations, which really only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.
Of course, you can always just continue shopping and watching tv while maintaining the ridiculous belief that governments, by their very nature, arent always in the business of gaining more power and control over their citizenry. Your argument that no evidence would be left behind is niavete in its purest and most american form. There seem to be two very important facts you fail to understand. 1. When you own the entire mainstream media, you control what most uneducated, unthinking Americans know about anything, and therefore don't need to worry about the glaringly obvious evidence left behind, since most people will continue to think that the very act of discussing the discrepencies regarding 911 is anti-american. They believe this because fox news tells them to believe it, not because it's based on any form of logic or scientific evaluation.
I wonder if the reason your message was completely devoid of facts is because you haven't done any research on September the 11th. Maybe the reason so many "CTs" as you put it, seem to you to think they know everything about 911 is because you know nothing. You'd think that if conspiracy theories annoy you so much, you'd do your homework and provide the arguments and information to finally disprove them once and for all.
I don't claim to know what happened that day, but I will tell you this. At least I'm not afraid to talk about it, which seems to be the main problem with you 9/11 deniers. Instead of honest debate, you resort to insults and childish dismissal, which is a tell-tale sign of someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
